Presidential Debate #1

[SmellyFed]

The debate is almost upon us and it should be a good night for Republicans. President Bush has been on message and very persuasive in recent weeks. Kerry has been muddled and confused.

A tough night for Mr. Kerry's supporters I predict.

[tacitus]

Please post all debate comments to this thread. I'll make it a sticky.

[ReneeM]

I agree SF. I did say a prayer for GWB to keep his mind focused. I just saw THK saying something to Laura Bush...I wonder if Laura said Good Luck because your gonna need it!!:rotflmbo:

[nosferatuscoffin]

This is a RIOT so far. Kerry is even more pathetic than even I thought he would be. On the Homeland Security question, Kerry was all over the map, flailing away about cutting cops, firefighters and then going totally off the reservation whining about tax cuts. Incredible.

[SmellyFed]

President Bush is stammering quite a bit. His points are just as valid but obvuscated by his delivery. I hope (and pray) his delivery strengthens as this debate winds up.

[nosferatuscoffin]

That is fine, since that is the way he is. He never has been and never will be a great speaker. Of course, he has to constantly go over things again and again to try to get through those thick skulls who are watching this debate as to why he should be re-elected with the WOT of course, being the primary reason. And to counter Kerry's full diaper whining.

Then again, anyone who is still undecided at this point in the game should not be allowed within 100 miles of a voting booth as they obviously have no clue as to the world around them

[Blowback]

President Bush is stammering quite a bit. His points are just as valid but obvuscated by his delivery. I hope (and pray) his delivery strengthens as this debate winds up.

I'm definitely with ya there.

[Beowulf]

Yes, President Bush does stammer alot but it's no secret he's not the greatest speaker in the world. Most people I know aren't. Anyway....

One comment that Kerry made I will correct since I was in the Gulf War and know. Kerry said, "George Bush senior said that the reason we didn't go into Baghdad is because we didn't have an exit strategy."

I know the real reason was because the UN resolution was to free Kuwait. The president honored the UN resolution which included NOT going into Baghdad.

Get your facts straight, Senator.

And as I listen to his final speech, I keep hearing, "I have a plan." I still haven't heard details of any of those plans.

[FatherTime]

There appears to be a weakness in Kerry's responses when it comes to North Korea. Bush is showing more 'multilateral' engagements, but, Kerry is determined to go it alone.

Bush shot back about sanctions on Iran...Kerry was caught lying.

Bush is on the defensive when he doesn't need to be...for whatever reason.

Bush is repeating himself...(probably a 'draw' when it comes to tonights debate as to helping/hurt himself)

You get the sense that Bush believes what he says and means it. You get the sense that Kerry has "groomed" his answers and still has not responded to questions at large. (but then, these types of debates rarely do)

Edge to Kerry on presentation, Bush gets to score points on sincerity and willingness to address (MOST) of the issues. Bush is being far to kind, Kerry appears "high and mighty" in many of his answers.

KKKerry and crew can say he presented better, but, what he presented was hollow and meaningless. (his 4 points on Iraq are point-less)

-FT

[FatherTime]

Also, Bush was not prepared to talk about the 9-11 report, for some reason. He also walked away from some REALLY easy shots at Kerry. On viet nam, bush should have gone for the jugular. (Kerry's 1971 speech)

Bush didn't go for the throat on kerry's talk about killing terrorists. Bush needed to bring up the fact that killing them alone will not win the war...(fighting on the ground, in the world of finance and banking by cutting off their funding, by making other parts of the world unsafe for terrorism...etc.)

Bush seemed too willing to rely only on his need to be "resolute" and not enough effort to point out weaknesses in kerry's plans.

[Chris]

I find it interesting that Kerry screams against the 30+ nation coalition in Iraq, that he repeatedly mischaracterizes as a "unilaternal" action, and yet insists that Bush is dealing with North Korea wrong with a 6 nation coalition, because he thinks we should deal with them one on one. :duh:

[Maggie_T]

Well, if I ever needed to be convinced that Kerry would be a horrrendous president, tonight did if for me.

Yes, Bush stammered. Yes, he was on the defensive. But I know that what Bush said tonight is what he has always thought and therefore, acted accordingly.

I CANNOT trust Kerry. What he said tonight, he flip-flopped about time and time again. How can anyone believe he will stick to what he said tonight? Tomorrow he might think differently again.

And one more thing. I've said this once, I'll say it a thousand times: I DO NOT trust Kerry with our sovereignty. All that babble about asking the world permission to act (that's what it boiled down to) chills the blood in my veins.

In short, Bush has never wavered in his beliefs. Kerry does it all the time, depending on which way the wind blows. That's not what constitutes leadership. That does not a good president make.

[Maggie_T]

I find it interesting that Kerry screams against the 30+ nation coalition in Iraq, that he repeatedly mischaracterizes as a "unilaternal" action, and yet insists that Bush is dealing with North Korea wrong with a 6 nation coalition, because he thinks we should deal with them one on one. :duh:
Chris, that is exactly what I said to James during the debate.

[Suzie]

I wish Bush had hit him a little harder. Especially with how his position on Iraq could cause us to loose the terror war with a "President Kerry" who ridicules the leadership and all of those serving in Iraq saying we aren't winning.

[SouthernReBelle]

Kerry IMHO just kissed his arse goodbye with the military.

Heather

[Maggie_T]

The clown (Kerry, of course) talks about bringing all countries together and then cavalierly dismissed those countries that are fighting with us on the war on terror just because they are not France.

And we're supposed to entrust our country and sovereigntyto this vacillating, double-dealing bozo?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Kerry's failure to understand that Operation Iraqi Freedom is an integral part of the War on Terrorism completely disqualifies him for the presidency.

[SundaeDriver]

I found it interesting that Kerry insists that the proper way to deal with Korea's nuclear proliferation is a one-on-one approach i.e. U.S and North Korea dealing directly with one another and no one else involved, yet he demands a coalition to deal with Iraq. Maybe its just me, but do I see a potential inconsistent reaction to a situation?

In tonight's debate Kerry did a poor job of giving anyone a clear idea of what his plans were. Bush rightly pointed out the mixed signals Kerry eminates. One thing I wish Bush would have said that would have nailed Kerry was something along the line, "Do you think Libya would have unilaterally disarmed if Washington, under President Kerry, was giving mixed signals?"

According to Kerry his "mixed signals" his flip-flops, if you will, are products of new information. According to Kerry, the ability to change one's perspective according to this information shows integrity. However, according to Kerry, he wants to build coalitions. A question I have is how will any country be willing to be partners with us in a situation when some "new information" can come along at any time and cause this country's resolve to waiver or go off in another direction? What does Kerry expect the other countries of this coalition to do? Follow the original plan of action, or follow him to the waffle house?

[Large_Al]

Father time I couldn't agree more! My God he could of brought up Kerry's voting record a couple of times but he didn't.

My wife just put her support behind Bush! She is superficial. She can't stand the way Bush talks and says he looks like a Hobbit. OK you understand my cross I bare. That's what I get for marrying a Social Worker. Let me add I love her dearly. But he said Seven words that swung her " there will be an all Volunteer Army"! That sold her!! Let it never be said she doesn't think of our children first. And that is the winning line with women!!!

[Chris]

"I Will hunt and kill all terrorists." as i recall and then thinking what kind of leader would say such a thing?

He was pandering for votes and it was blatantly obvious. However, it more than likely had the opposite effect than what he wanted on both sides.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I have to say, I know President Bush is not a groomed natural speaker, but his long pauses and small tongue-slips hurt a bit tonight. Kerry came off as on the offensive, his words were pretty clear, and he was able to get off some points without President Bush being able to respond effectively. That disappointed me tonight. Of course, did anyone else notice something a little "off" with the format and the moderator?


I know President Bush is right. I know President Bush is the best candidate for the job. I know the stuff between-the-lines which supports the comments he made tonight. I have taken the time to RESEARCH the candidates, listen to more than just the scripted sound-bites, and pay attention to actions as much, if not more, than words. What I am worried about is those who say they are on the fence and do NOT know Bush is right, do NOT know if Bush is the best candidate for the job, and aren't aware of the stuff-between-the-lines which supports each candidate's positions. They are the very people who RELY on sound-bites and media pablum to make their voting decisions.

I think it is the responsibility of every conservative and Republican to assist President Bush with getting his message out to those people. We have to be diligent when we are with others about pointing out all the fallicies in Kerry's "plans, ideas, and proposals." There were MAJOR holes in his debate points tonight, I mean like GRAND CANYON sized. Unfortunately President Bush didn't do a very good job in capitalizing on them.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm voting for the President, and I think most of America will too ... I just hope the voter fraud, national observers, the main-slime media and hollyweird, as well as the corrupt judicial system doesn't find some way to finagle their way into this election.

[Webruary]

I don't know how many more nations he can convince to join the coalition that has not already joined. Jacques Chirac has already publicly stated NON to helping the USA even with Kerry as President and so has Germany. Does Kerry think that Spain with its current leadership will go back to Iraq when one act of terrorism brought the entire country to its knees ?

Lets put it this way --- IN DEFENDING THE COUNTRY AND PRE-EMPTING TERRORISTS, WE SHOULD NOT CARE WHO JOINS US. OUR PRIORITY IS OUR OWN SECURITY FIRST AND FOREMOST. Any country that decides to help is most welcome, but if they cannot help, SO BE IT.

In Bosnia, 90% of the troops were from the USA, so was Kosovo, so was the first Gulf War. Today, we have roughly 149,000 troops in Iraq. 140,000 of them are from the USA. Does Kerry honestly think that if he were President, this ratio is going to increase ? He never explained how he is going to convince the French to join when they can't even prevent the massacre of thousands in Congo.

As for going back to the UN ??? God help us. This is the very same organization that :

A) Handled the corrupt oil for food program which effectively starved the Iraqis and allowed Saddam to steal over $10 billion for you know what;

B) Immediately left when the first terrorist bomb hit their premises early in the occupation of Iraq.

C) Mishandled the peace keeping in Rwanda where 800,000 people were hacked to death while the UN troops stood by doing nothing ( and Kofi Anand was in charge of this operation then ).

D) Did almost nothing to stop the massacre of thousands of Bosnians by the Serbs

E) Allowed countries like Libya, Syria and Sudan to sit on its Human Rights Commission and even allowed some of them to chair it.

F) Can't even decide on the wording of the resolution as to whether to call what is happening in Sudan genocide or not ( and here is my bet, the delegates will continue to talk the issue to death but can't do a damn thing without asking for American troops again ).

Lets face it folks. Without America, the world can do nothing to stop atrocities. Look at Liberia and Haiti for example. Did the UN, France or Germany do a damn thing to stop any massacre ? Who prevented genocide in these countries ? THE GOOD OLD US of A *WITHOUT* the help of anyone.

I could go on and on and on..... But Kerry is naive if he thinks getting the help of countries that have turned their back on us is going to happen when he becomes president. he is dreaming if he thinks the UN is going to make Iraq any safer and more stable ( think of what they did with the oil for food program ).

If you want to do anything right ( especially when it comes to fighting terror), DO IT OUR WAY --- THE WAY OF THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE.

[Chris]

According to Kerry his "mixed signals" his flip-flops....

I was glad Bush kept pointing out those mixed signals and how they affect the coalition, the troops, and all. However, he needed to add how the terrorist themselves were being emboldened by those mixed signals of Kerry and his ilk.

[Wolfcounsel]

I sum up this debate with the words of a movie lawyer, Jim Carrey, in LIAR, LIAR:

(Kerry: I'm kicking my ass! Do you mind?)

[Chris]

I agree Web!

[uncommon1]

A I have to say is this....

[RayChuang]

Lets face it folks. Without America, the world can do nothing to stop atrocities. I agree 100%! Just look at 20th Century history:

1. It was the intervention of the USA that brought World War I to an end.

2. It was America's military might that contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and almost single-handedly defeated Japan in World War II.

3. It was America's resolve to fight Communism that allowed the most of the world to rid itself of Communism.

4. It was American intervention that prevented Saddam Hussein from essentially taking over most of the Persian Gulf oilfields essentially unopposed in 1990-1991.

5. It was American intervention that finally ended the ethnic strife in what was once Yugoslavia.

And now, it is American resolve that we are finally fighting back against the insidious al-Qaeda terrorist network. And we must keep up the fight before terrorists try to obliterate a US city off the map with an improvised nuclear bomb.

[CaliGirl]

I have to say, I know President Bush is not a groomed natural speaker, but his long pauses and small tongue-slips hurt a bit tonight. Kerry came off as on the offensive, his words were pretty clear, and he was able to get off some points without President Bush being able to respond effectively. That disappointed me tonight. Of course, did anyone else notice something a little "off" with the format and the moderator?.Agree with what you said. At one time I told GWB through the TV "hurry up, you only have 90 seconds to reply"....he was pausing way to long. CaliBoy just LOL.

What do you mean a little "off" with the format and the moderator? I remember GWB saying something to the moderator, and skerry saying something to the fact that GWB was changing the rules. Is that what you are speaking of?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Agree with what you said. At one time I told GWB through the TV "hurry up, you only have 90 seconds to reply"....he was pausing way to long. CaliBoy just LOL.OhMyGosh, I was TOO! Bubba was laughing so hard at me he couldn't hear the TV and began snorting, LOL. I ALWAYS talk back to the tele (most especially during political "stuff" and college football games, LOL).

The President didn't seem to be able to get his thoughts organized quick enough. I can understand the problem, it's when my brain is moving faster than my mouth can keep up. All the stuff is in there but basically in a bottleneck before it reaches my vocal cords.

What do you mean a little "off" with the format and the moderator? I remember GWB saying something to the moderator, and skerry saying something to the fact that GWB was changing the rules. Is that what you are speaking of?No, I can't quite put my finger on it. From the very beginning when he said that the questions came from him but he would enforce the rules that the candidates laid forth. It just seemed to me the questions came out unevenly between Kerry and President Bush -- there were a few times, it appeared to me, that Kerry got a bit of extra time to respond before the "timer" thing was activated on his 30 second rebuttal. Also, the phraseology of the questions seemed contrived to put President Bush on the defense, certainly at least more often than Kerry.

Of course, I could be reading way more into this. I don't like Jim Lehrer, and certainly would not have agreed to allow him to be moderator -- he's dull, has no charisma or spark, and I believe with all my heart he is as biased as Rather.

Anyway, there just seem to be something "off," that's the best way I know how to describe it. Maybe because they didn't get an opening statement ... don't they usually get to make an opening statement? Also, why two coin tosses? If Kerry got to go first in the questioning, why didn't President Bush get to go first with his closing remarks? I don't know, again, maybe it was just me.

[Large_Al]

Web I agree also.

[terri]

The President was, the President! He made sure you knew where he stood in relation to his protection of ----- YOU. If I were an undecided female with children, John Kerry would have appeared shiny and slippery to me this evening - another Washington DC politician, nothing more. The President to me looked like a guy who would get out of his car and personally attack the terrorist threatening me or my children. As a voter, I'd choose the latter.

Something interesting, Dick Morris claims Kerry won on style while the President won on substance. Okay. As a thinking person, style is fine when you're winning a war scripted out of Hollywood (we all know that Steven Seqal would give his left arm to play Kerry-GET IT LEFT ARM). Hollywood isn't scripting terrorists, and even undecided voters know that much. Morris still sees Bush ahead, but the race tightening. I probably would have to agree with Morris on this point.

President Bush will still win this election 51% to 47%. I believe he'll carry Florida which will put him over in the electoral college.

On a side note, I'm wondering how Rush is viewing this tonight. It will be interesting to get his take on the debate. Also, I'm curious as to what Rove's October surprises are. He says there are at least a couple.

[Antigone]

No, I can't quite put my finger on it. From the very beginning when he said that the questions came from him but he would enforce the rules that the candidates laid forth. It just seemed to me the questions came out unevenly between Kerry and President Bush -- there were a few times, it appeared to me, that Kerry got a bit of extra time to respond before the "timer" thing was activated on his 30 second rebuttal. Also, the phraseology of the questions seemed contrived to put President Bush on the defense, certainly at least more often than Kerry.

HSRU:

Here is where I see a difference in the questioning.......

LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

Then he asks this of Kerry......................

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

Not exactly the same thing is it? There appeared, at least to me, that there was an accusatory tone in the questioning of President Bush that wasn't there when he questioned Kerry.

Then he threw this doozy out there.

LEHRER: New question, President Bush. Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?

That was a set up plain and simple, hoping President Bush would take the low road.

I cannot stand Lehrer and this only helped remind me why.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Okay. As a thinking person, style is fine when you're winning a war scripted out of Hollywood (we all know that Steven Seqal would give his left arm to play Kerry-GET IT LEFT ARM). Hollywood isn't scripting terrorists, and even undecided voters know that much. I couldn't agree more ... this was one of the things I was hoping the President would touch more on. Most specifically Kerry's insistance that with "his plan" we would be getting our military out in 6 months as well as the other "time limit" plans he floated. You CAN'T predict the future ... to state unequivocally that he would have our troops out by a certain date or in so many months is ludicrous and dangerous. That's like giving the terrorists a permission slip to use at their discretion, once our troops have "pulled out." Also, unless you are DOING the job, you can only SPECULATE as to how you would handle it. I venture to say that IF Kerry would have been in office, or more realistically Al Gore from the previous election, just how do you think HE would have handled things, hmmmm? I would have replied that it is easy to back-seat drive and hind-sight strategize. Kerry, you weren't faced with the decisions, even though you had the same intel. You say you would have handled it differently? Well, you know if your democrat colleague Clinton would have gotten Osama the NUMEROUS times he was within his grasp, we wouldn't even be worrying about this now, would we? No, now I have to worry about a mess that he refused to clean up, in addition to doing what Clinton should have done then, preemptively prevent a tragedy from ever happening again by going on the offensive and stopping terrorism in it's tracks. Or something like that.


President Bush should have shown how ridiculous his position was. I was impressed with his answer to Leherer's statement concerning a timetable for getting troops out of Iraq. It made sense, it was reasonable ... there's no way to KNOW right now what time-frame we can be out of Iraq. What we do KNOW is that we will stay the course, keep doing everything in our power to help the Iraqi people to take back control over their own country, and assist them in creating a free Iraq. Due to the uncontrolable nature of the terrorists, how can we possible pinpoint an exact day and time to pull out, all we can do is ball park and hold fast.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You did better than I did at showing more of what I was talking about. There just seemed to be a slant in the format, but it was subtle and slick. I think from the get-go there was an aura of this. I'm not going to put all the blame on the format or the moderator, President Bush wasn't on his game tonight, but I think the other two helped move him along in that regard.

HSRU:
I cannot stand Lehrer and this only helped remind me why.I agree.

[RayChuang]

By the way, I saw the VCR recording I made of the debate tonight.

Senator Kerry sounded great, but when you look at the substantive issues Kerry falls flat on his face in no time flat. Issues like suggesting that we sell nuclear fuel to Iran (is he NUTS!? :shame: ), the global test for the US doing anything (psst, Americans don't want to subjugate their foreign policy to the UN), and a whole bunch of slickly-spoken lies.

[BEST45CAL]

I didn't like to see the president slumping. His posture was terrible. Another thing that I didn't like was when it was his turn to rebut Kerry, Bush kept raising his hand. I don't know what Bush was thinking, but he didn't need to keep raising his hand like that. Bush seemed very flustered with Kerry tonight.

I liked what the president had to say, but I didn't care for his style. But we all know that it's not about style here.

As for sKerry...Kerry just came off as another slick-tongued, pompous assbag trying to sell us bogus goods, shaking his head in agreement whenever Bush would rebut him. If he were running for president of the world, I'm sure he'd win, but he's not.

And what's the deal with sKerry's face? He looked as if he was dead! What happened to the orange bronzer he was wearing the other day? Damn!

I didn't need to hear them suck up to each other toward the end. I hate bullshit like that. It just came off as being really cheesy.

Overall, a boring "debate.":wish4Z:

[Jeffrho]

I thought the President did a good job. The questions that were asked of the President were accusatory in tone, or flat-out baiting (the one were he asked President bush about his "opponent's character issues"). Kerry on the otherhand got questions like "Can you describe some of the mistakes you felt Bush made in Iraq?" But what would you expect from a left-wing hack like Jim Lehrer.

Kerry came off much slicker in his presentation, but much of his "facts" were BS. For instance, his claim that we "outsourced" the job in Afghanistan. Kerry said that Tommy Franks said troops were diverted from Afghanistan for Iraq, which was false. Franks was on later with Hannity & Colmes to personally refute this claim. Kerry misrepresented the North Korean problems, however he should be blaming the Clinton administration and Jimma Cahtah for that mess. He wants more "world involvment" in Iraq, but he wants to go it alone in dealing with North Korea. Huh? And suggesting that we should sell nuclear fuel to Iran? He's out of his fugging mind!! Kerry also contradicted himself on the Iraq issue several times during the debate - he said a couple of times that going into Iraq was a mistake, then when asked how do you ask a man to die for a mistake, he said it wasn't a mistake!! Flip flop. And His quote about the "global test" was a big blunder and shows that Kerry would submit our national security to the UN.

[Samcat]

I did not think that the President nailed Kerry on the things he should have nailed him on.

[Samcat]

By the way, I saw the VCR recording I made of the debate tonight.

Senator Kerry sounded great, but when you look at the substantive issues Kerry falls flat on his face in no time flat. Issues like suggesting that we sell nuclear fuel to Iran (is he NUTS!? :shame: ), the global test for the US doing anything (psst, Americans don't want to subjugate their foreign policy to the UN), and a whole bunch of slickly-spoken lies.I agree, and I believe the President made his point when he said he had the best interests of America at heart first; however, I might have added (were I the President), that we can interact with other countries, but my interests is for the USA and her citizens first, not for other countries. I was elected the President of the United States, not Germany, France or the UN.

[Patriot Heart]

What about the outrageously slanted question by Lehrer "What colossal mistake(s) has the President made in your view?" Snickery laugh by Kerry "Well where do I start?" That infuriated me.
Patriot Heart in OK

[FatherTime]

Ok...

Day afterwards and I had a chance to review some video and some of the comments by others.

Kerry had the style of a trial lawyer and looked "slicked up".
Bush spoke from the heart and meant every word that he said.
Point: Bush

Bush was not very fast on his feet
Kerry was quick to jab and made complete sentences...although contradicting himself at times.
Point: Kerry

Bush showed Kerry for the liar that he is.
Kerry was unable to articulate what he would do in Iraq.
Point: Bush

...etc.

Overall, it was very much a "draw", but, haveing reviewed the video, Bush won it on substance. Kerry had a better presentation (as most trial lawyers do)

What Kerry said about Tommy Franks and others (his "quotes") were LIES!!!

This will get out on the blog-o-sphere and come back to haunt him.

-FT

[terri]

I just read an interesting take on another board. This man scored Bush a win; here's why. In the next few days what will you remember from this debate? The President's statements condeming Kerry for saying, "Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place" and his statements of "Mixed Messages". Bush stayed on topic and drove his points home.

Now, what I'm carrying from the debate WHICH I DID NOT KNOW PRIOR, was Kerry's stance on North Korea. That to me is completely chilling! Added to screwing up handling North Korea, he wants to disarm our Nukes. I don't know about you guys but I'm not ready for the second coming of Christ: The President has to win this election; that is all there is to it.

[Webruary]

Here is an excerpt from Realclearpolitics.com

THE GREAT DEBATE: I don't think there is any question that John Kerry helped himself with his performance tonight. Just how much, and how much it may matter in the polls is a different story altogether.
Nevertheless, as a practical matter Kerry not only survived this debate and avoided being knocked out of the race tonight by President Bush, he'll probably emerge in the coming days with a reenergized base and a few undecideds in his column. The early spin among the punditry seems to be quite favorable for Kerry, and you don't have to be a black-helicopter wingnut to know that the MSM has everything they need to start churning out Kerry comeback stories from now through the end of the week.

Debates are such a strange ritual of style triumphing over substance. I mean, I'm sure John Kerry passed a certain bar tonight with many people because of his looks, his demeanor, and his articulateness - even though to my mind he really didn't articulate anything very substantive. It's like taking a used car and giving it a new muffler and paint job so it looks and sounds different than you remember. But if you pop the hood you'll see it's still running on the same old engine.

Many people are talking about Kerry's "global test" remark in response to Jim Lehrer's question about the doctrine of preemption. It certainly was a gaffe - or perhaps more of a Freudian slip - and it may come back to bite him, though I wouldn't hold your breath hoping the press focuses on it.

For my money, this exchange was the most damning part of the entire debate for Kerry:

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

You do not have to have a PhD in logic to notice the egregious contradiction here. If your view is that invading Iraq was a mistake and U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq (which they are) then our brave troops are, in fact, dying for a mistake.

[Beowulf]

I look foward to round #2 with the town hall style debate where the public is involved. The people can press a bit more and can blow the whistle on someone if they wish too. I think the style last night is too restrictive with time limits and such as you really can't get to deep into a matter when it really needs too.

[nene]

I am disappointed with the President. His performance was awful. The awkwardness of his speech, coupled with his facial expression at the remarks of Kerry, did not present a presidential image. I was hoping that his delivery would improve during his tenure.



But that is NOT what is important. Debating skills have zero correlation to Presidential performance. My confidence in Bush is not shaken. His words resonated with sincerity. In the final analysis, history shows that Kerry is a man of words but not deeds, whereas Bush is the inverse.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I can't say that President Bush won the debate, but Kerry sure as hell LOST the debate. Kerry lost because it was abundantly clear that his message was that Operation Iraqi Freedom in not part of the War on Terrorism and that we should have left Saddam in power to build and distribute WMDs to terrorist cells around the world, to continue to murder, rape, and torture innocent Iraqi civilians, to continue to harbor, train, and finance terrorists determined to destroy the United States.

There was one area where President Bush was the clear winner and that was in the segment on N. Korea. Bush nailed Kerry to the wall for not supporting the coalition that Bush has formed to help remove N. Korea's nuclear threat to the world. Bush made Kerry look like the hypocrite that he is.

[Kathy29]

I too thought that when the question was of Kerry's character, I expected an answer along the lines of "The senator is an anti war activist. He was an antiwar activist in 1971 and it's the only point on which he has been consistent. The Senator is an anti war activist today."

I also would have said "I admire the Senator's four months of service in Viet Nam".

Bush should also have thrown in there "We have a coalition. Who would Senator Kerry add to our willing participants, since Germany and France have already turned him down.

The killer comment would have been "The Senator intends to get the UN involved, the same UN that is the subject of the oil for food probe of wrongdoing and corruption".

Alas, Bush did not go for the Jugular

[BEST45CAL]

I am disappointed with the President. His performance was awful. The awkwardness of his speech, coupled with his facial expression at the remarks of Kerry, did not present a presidential image. I was hoping that his delivery would improve during his tenure.



But that is NOT what is important. Debating skills have zero correlation to Presidential performance. My confidence in Bush is not shaken. His words resonated with sincerity. In the final analysis, history shows that Kerry is a man of words but not deeds, whereas Bush is the inverse.

I agree. If you judge the debators on style, sKerry wins it. If you judge the debators on their words and past record, then Bush wins it.

There will be two polls. One based on style, and the other on substance.

Bush should fire his debate coach (as someone else has mentioned). But before he does that, Bush should kick him in the face.

I hope the president's performance improves next week.

[uncommon1]

I was just on Drudge and it had a link to the Rats website and it was titled "Faces of Frustration." They've got to be kidding! He wasn't frustrated, he was disgusted that such a worm could even be given this much attention. Just look at his face. There is no frustration; it is disdain. Does John Kerry realize that everytime he speaks he is stealing someone else's 15 minutes of fame? He needs to quit now and go home. Or as we like to say where I live, "Thank God, John Kerry is the candidate of his party!"

[Blowback]

I'd have to say Kerry "won". Even though Bush has the upper hand in the Iraq War argument, Kerry knows how to put the polish on his bullshit. There were probably morons watching last night who now side with Kerry just because he showed more gloss than Bush. GW really needs to drop the "uhhhhs" and "ummms". I know he's more organic than Kerry, but Joe Q. Idiot won't pick up on that, and it'll severely damage Bush in the end. Also, the president missed NUMEROUS opportunities to SLAM Marmaduke last night. Tsk, tsk.

[Sinanju]

First off... I am NOT the type of person to toe the party line. I am, however, conservative. I also felt the people that NEEDED to watch the debate last night will go with Kerry now... People, unlike us, who don't actually research, who watch the debates like it is a re-run of "West Wing"... I think those low brows are now on Kerry's side..


"
Fair minded person that I am, I have to write this... even as my fingers ache and my eyes bleed I chronicle the beginning of the end for America. Tonight I feel George Bush blew his feasible chances of re-election. All President Bush had to do was simply speak to the America people without a hitch in his voice or a pause in his thought process. All he had to do was basically deliver stump speech material. But nooooo.... Old Man Rove must have thought it imperative to hammer home three or four points that Americans already know are a given with Mr. Bush. All the President had to do was be the friendly faced conservative Americans feel safer following. All he had to do was deliver ONE "there you go again" or "it's the economy, stupid" but all we got was the repetative "flip-flopper" variation.

John Kerry told me NOTHING tonite. He dodged the question about what he would do in Iraq TWICE.. and yet the President didn't call him on it... Anyone reading this could have defeated John Kerry tonight... all he does is run circles around a topic and you can hang him with his own words... if he doesn't do it for you. But Bush didn't deliver that hit.. he never pressed the advantage. John Kerry won on style and delivery as well.. he didn't run over, he looked if not at ease at least not totally UNcomfortable. His height made him look presidential and someone must have fired his stylist because he looked almost human. John Kerry reversed his positions no less than four times tonite but I wonder if George Bush actually convinced America. For the first time, George Bush looked uncertain in my eyes.... and this was precisely the wrong time for that...

I still intend to vote for President Bush. I still believe in his policies, leadership, and direction in the world. I feel President Bush didn't lose but Kerry definately won. I will still do all I can to support him, but I cannot shake that sick, green, queasy feeling that has settled in the pit of my stomach."

sorry, that is just how I feel.. I understood who on that stage was telling the truth and who on that stage is the right person for the job... but I also understood who had been coached by Hollywood....

[Tlaloc]

In short, Bush has never wavered in his beliefs. Even when those beliefs have turned out to be disasterously wrong. Thats not a good thing, Maggie. Thats nothing more than refusing to admit his failing and pretending as if his failures were triumphs. Why on earth would you want a leader that refuses to budge from failed policies? Everyone makes mistakes, but to refuse to learn and grow from those mistakes isn't a sign of consistency but immaturity.

[nene]

Regarding Sinanju's post:

The relevance of this debate, if any, will end with the next debate.

[nene]

Even when those beliefs have turned out to be disasterously wrong. Thats not a good thing, Maggie. Thats nothing more than refusing to admit his failing and pretending as if his failures were triumphs. Why on earth would you want a leader that refuses to budge from failed policies? Everyone makes mistakes, but to refuse to learn and grow from those mistakes isn't a sign of consistency but immaturity.
Equating the current difficulties to failure is premature.

[Sinanju]

Personally, I felt Kerry won the debate... I will say the glut of advertisements to come from this debate will more than likely shape the next 2 weeks... everything from the Kerry "Portrait of George Bush" to Bush's "Mixed Messages".. but I think that Kerry did a great job of "prosecuting" George Bush and it looked like Bush made a major mistake representing himself....

However, I am NOT giving up on my President... I am just lament him not sealing the deal when he had the chance too... The easiest way to lose is to not finish your opponent when you have the opportunity too...

For all we know, I could be as wrong as the next two debates as I was about this one... for all we know, Bush could completely turn the tide on the taxes/economy front.. Maybe he is way more comfortable in the townhall meeting debate and Kerry makes the "get in your face" mistake or something like it.... Maybe the "October Surprise" is a doozy... word is Rove said there were a couple of "gotchas" coming...

Maybe.. maybe.. maybe...

Like Ronny Reagan Jr. said... We now have a race on our hands!

[Wyatt_Junker]

The idea of a muslim summit, while highly exciting to Kerry, doesn't exactly billow my sails.

It is unfortunate that the President failed to capitalize on Kerry's pockmarked logic, which was rittled more than Edward James Olmos' pus-filled, 3 dimensional cheeks, especially concerning North Korea which Kerry kept blaming on Bush re nukes. All Bush had to do was mention, just once, Madelaine Albright's name, and her close encounters with Mister ill, and that she trusted the word and integrity of a dictator more than her own (or lack of) common sense. All the food he could (eat) *ahem* ...turn into uranium enrichment. What a deal. That's all we need, Mr. Kerry, are more photo ops with dictators that make us all feel good about ourselves. More Camp Davids. More Oslos. More Kyotos. More Summits. More Talkie talkies. More Oprah-ization will surely only help, right?

Unfortunately, Kerry's idea of foreign policy can be summed up in 4 overdecorated words: We. Are. The. World.

Unfortunately, all the "undecideds" watch Dr. Phil and believe in talk therapy, that it somehow also works in a grand scale...like foreign policy.

[Human_Error]

Well, I think Bush did GREAT!

Before the debate, I asked myself, If I was Bush what would I expect from Kerry?
I would expect him to make me defensive and force my hand on speaking back in truth on issues that are currently being discussed with World leaders in hope that in rebuttling the truth I will "piss" off someone and create media issues in the next few weeks prior to the election!

Kerry did this! He poked Bush on several things hoping that Bush would make comments on France, Germany, Muslims, North Korea, and the UN!!

How did Bush handle it?

Brilliantly!!!

So many are trying to figure out why Bush was passive and how he literally bit his lip in and didn't take the opportunity to slam Kerry to the other side of the wall, but I tell you Bush was brilliant!

Remember, Kerry hasn't put his plan out there...and he still didn't! Bush kinda sat back and let Kerry put his cards on the table.

I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.
This was priceless in my opinion, as many of us have been a bit perplexed with Bush on stating Islam is a peaceful religion, and yet, in this statement by Kerry, he pretty much made us all smile! I liked hearing that BUSH is not reaching out to the muslims! Did Bush come back and say Islam was peaceful? NO he did not. I am thankful for this!!! And for us out here that are not PRO ISLAM...it was nice to see where Kerry stands on this...hehehhehee...I actually had a friend that was going to vote for Kerry and last night after the debate called me up and said...NOT NOW...HE is going to help the Muslims!!! So there is ONE more vote for Bush!!


I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.

we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. And that‘s the difference between the president and me. I think we all saw through this...and with other things Kerry said, made it clear that he wants to hold France's hand on one side and Germany's hand on the other! Again...I think the American's that are sick of both France and Germany, if they were undecided before, became a vote for Bush!

Kerry, if elected will have us having to include the cheating French and untrustworthy Germans and the disgraceful UN, that stole the medicine and food from the Iraqi children!

And it was funny that he said he had a plan....but ummm...where was it??????

Another thing was the North Korea Issue...haha...I guess Kerry was hoping the American's were uneducated on this...as we all know that without China's pressure on North Korea, we could be effective but using diplomacy we would NEED China at the table!!!
And ummmm...Kerry thinks IF he is President he is going to get everyone to say NO TO NUKES! Uh huh...we have seen how these Islamics are....just don't forget the Mosque issues in Iraq, how many times did Sawdr lie only to get his way and to move on to get stronger???
Kerry just doesn't have a clue about these lies!
Bush was right on when he said he (BUSH) knew how the world works! He has dealt with these liars!!!
AND Why would we give up our bunker-busting nuclear weapons at a time of war?? If Kerry is president he is going to shut that program down? Again...I think Kerry LOST votes on making that statement!!

I know everyone was thinking Bush was reserved and repetitive, but it was absolutely him being him and letting Kerry show his ignorance and his wrong facts. I could see Bush frustrated inside over Kerry's statistics, thinking, " Kerry is clueless" and that is how it came off to me! It had to be hard to sit there and listen to Kerry's Bullshit!! but it was a night for Kerry to present himself on what he would do! Did he really ever tell what he would do in Iraq??

We all know that Bush could have slammed Kerry on the coalition remarks, the Iraq remarks, the saddam remarks, the UN remarks including France and Germany. We know he could have slammed him back with the truth of the Oil for Food program and the kickbacks etc, but again, instead of doing so, he protected any complicated media for the next five weeks until the votes are in! Remember folks, Bush was debating as President, but he still has a job to do, he is still working with these people during a time of war, so criticising these people to make Kerry look foolish wasn't wise in the big picture!
How many of you were answering for Bush during this debate? I know I was...and then each time I did, I thought...very clever Bush for not replying like I did because why ask for critical coverage now on the stupid things Kerry threw out there for bait? We all know the truth and comebacks he could have had! He had pretty good self control I think.
Sure Bush looked irritated but he remained himself and kept his message the same as always!

The best part also was, and we know the democrats have been trying to scare the hell out of every parent out there about the draft even with legislation, and Bush pretty much smashed that with ....

The next four years we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-gathering services. We will reform our military. The military will be an all-volunteer army.
I think Bush did good for a man that has a big job going on in Iraq right now and was very careful to not spill any information that could effect things over there. Just think...if he had spent alot of time on this bashing Kerry with truths and perhaps bashing him in anger, it could have cause another beheading or kidnapping! We all know these terrorist have just been looking for any reason to use to hurt someone!!

I know Kerry tried to say that Iraq is not important and that Afghanistan is the center of it all...but know this...whatever the war strategy is...we are building our largest embassy in the very center of the middle east for a reason!
Look at the map....Iraq is very important and during a time of war, I think it was right that Bush didn't explain that just for electorial purposes! We are at war and during debate Bush didn't forget that!

God Bless Bush!!!

[Tlaloc]

Equating the current difficulties to failure is premature.

I have to disagree although I do appreciate the civility of your tone.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'd have to say Kerry "won".

The only way that anyone can claim that Kerry won is if one believes in style over substance. Bush has the substance, while Kerry ONLY has style.

[Incident_command]

Personally, I felt Kerry won the debate... I will say the glut of advertisements to come from this debate will more than likely shape the next 2 weeks... everything from the Kerry "Portrait of George Bush" to Bush's "Mixed Messages".. but I think that Kerry did a great job of "prosecuting" George Bush and it looked like Bush made a major mistake representing himself....

No way, kerry didn't gain votes last night so he lost. kerry in no way left those so called undecided votes with a clear understanding of his message. The advertisements to come will show, or should show, kerry saying one thing at the debate and another in his very recent past.

To say kerry won puts credibility to his answers and he lied his ass off the entire debate. Hell I could debate Patton on military tactics and appear to do very well if you allow me to lie, talk out my ass, and not hold me accountable for my answers.
The fact that Bush could have moved in for the kill is valid, I have no idea why he held back.

[ReneeM]

The only way that anyone can claim that Kerry won is if one believes in style over substance. Bush has the substance, while Kerry ONLY has style.


Right on NT:thumb:

[Sinanju]

"kerry saying one thing at the debate and another in his very recent past."

-Hell, you could show Kerry saying one thing at the debate and then Kerry saying something completely different at the same debate....


"The fact that Bush could have moved in for the kill is valid, I have no idea why he held back."

-Me either, and that is what I am lamenting... Bush had the chance to make the majority of America to say "it's over.." and turn off their TVs....

Don't get me wrong, I am a big Bush supporter... the alternative is truly hair raising... I just know that Bush could have eaten Kerry's lunch last night and he choose not to for whatever reason.... and I think that is a major mistake.

[Blowback]

The only way that anyone can claim that Kerry won is if one believes in style over substance. Bush has the substance, while Kerry ONLY has style.
You know that, and I know that. But what matters is what the morons out there think.

[DoctorDoom]

But what matters is what the morons out there think.The morons out there DON'T think. Therein lies the problem.

[Faithful_Servant]

One of the things that Senator Kerry did that really annoyed me was when he was asked a question and instead of answering it went back to a previous question. I thought that a debate in this format was supposed to be constrained by the moderators questions. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it just pretty chickens#!t to me.

[Naturalized-Texan]

In a way I feel kinda sorry for John Kerry. Everyone knows that he is lying, except maybe his most rabid anti-American supporters. And they probably know that he is lying, but don't care because, like AlGore in his 2000 coup d'etat against a duly elected president, they will do anything to win - lie, cheat, and steal.

The fact that everyone knows that Kerry is lying prevents him from saying anything of substance, so all he has left is style. Before the debate yesterday, he went to a hair-stylist and a manicurist and who knows who else, while President Bush was getting emotionally drained commiserating with the hurricane victims. Even with all that primping, Kerry still ended up looking like Lurch.

[dajoga]

Just did a quick skim of this thread--some thoughts.

Bush was on the defensive b/c that's usually where an incumbent is--and since no president is perfect, the challenger can always say "I have a better plan." It might be only 1% better but it sounds good.

Kerry believes he's superboy--how many times did he say "I have a better plan!" "I can do it better." Since all he's been is a Senator hardly known for anything, it's tough to say "Your plan didn't work very well." Besides, you don't have to prove that your plan is better--just tell people it is and hope they believe it.

France won't join the coalition even for jonboy--they're still hot that their "sugar-daddy" is no longer able to slip them some "oil for food" funds. But, then again, maybe jonboy will reinstate it for them.

One thing I noticed is that jonboy never answered the question that was something about when the troops can come home from Iraq. I don't think he even danced around it, but just went off into left field about something else. Anyone remember?

[Wyatt_Junker]

One thing I noticed is that jonboy never answered the question that was something about when the troops can come home from Iraq. I don't think he even danced around it, but just went off into left field about something else. Anyone remember?
6 months. If all was roses.

All the Shiites would have to do is be low key for 4 months, wait for the U.S. evacuation and then let throttle, bring in more Syrian & Iranian ex-pats and go balls-to-wall civil war, murdering Kurds all hell nell. Too easy, really.

Right now their plan is to murder as many innocents as possible to try to get the 'paper tiger' to cry meow thru the U.S. media and thus enable a Kerry win aka Spain. That's step one.

Step two is U.S. evac. and then wholesale slaughter, raping and pillaging and gutting the landscape fer aaaaaallah.

[Maggie_T]

Kerry was his usual pompous flipflopper. Nothing new there.

He said that he wanted to bring all the countries together and in the same breath pretty much dissed the coalition countries because they are not France.

He pulled a tantrum about Bush going to war with Iraq "unilaterally," and then bleated endlessly about the importance of going one-on-one with North Korea.

He said that "nobody has more respect for our troops than I." Uh-huh. And if he has to send our troops in harm's way, as he stated he "might have to," what's he going to do when they come back? Spit on them and call them murderers and rapists?

He droned on and on and on about how he can defend our country more effectively, and spent 20 years in the senate voting against every single law that would enable America to defend herself.

He spent most of the time insulting Bush about the way he went to war with Iraq and saying that he (Kerry) would do a better job. And how is he going to go about it? He'll have a 'summit' (liberals love summits and meetings and any other chances of wasting time talking and doing little else) and then he's going to do exactly what Bush is doing now. Except at more expense.

And last but not least, the dagger in the wound. Another tantrum about Bush's tax cut. "We don't need it." Speak for yourself, you bloody gigolo! Of course, anyone who marries into billions of dollars can afford to pay liberal taxes. What about those of us who can't!

There is NOTHING that offends me more than a liberal poodle (a.k.a. a rich older woman's lap dog) whining about tax cuts! NOTHING! :flame:

I could go on and on, but you all watched the debate.

If I had to describe what went on, I'd say that Bush was tired (he had been touring hurricane-bashed Florida, while Kerry was getting a manicure) and had the "Oh, man. Not that shit again!" look. Not a recommendable attitude in a presidential debate, to be sure. But how can you blame him.

On the other hand, Kerry gave a good one-night-stand performance. He gave his voters the "reason" they needed to cling to him. The true reason of course, being their pathological hatred for Bush, but it doesn't do to admit that, you understand.

Now liberals are going to treat this as Kerry's birth. Whatever he did in the past does not exist anymore. For them, Kerry was born on Tuesday, when he talked endlessly whithout saying anything, and reiterated his habit of flip-flopping. But he did it well, his make-up did a good job of hiding the tan mishap, and he wore cuff-links.

Who could ask for more.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Next debate: Kerry in puffy shirt, ruffles down the front with flared cuffs, dracula cape with high collar, black leather chaps and platform K.I.S.S. shoes.

The biscotti nibbling crowd will luv it, spilling espresso all over themselves as their eyes roll up in the back of their heads in total thrall.

[Maggie_T]

Yeah, let's hope they choke on their tofu finger food. :grin:

[Celebraman]

Maggie_T said: Now liberals are going to treat this as Kerry's birth. Whatever he did in the past does not exist anymore. For them, Kerry was born on Tuesday, when he talked endlessly whithout saying anything, and reiterated his habit of flip-flopping. But he did it well, his make-up did a good job of hiding the tan mishap, and he wore cuff-links.

Who could ask for more.Kerry gave a good performance, which he needed to stay afloat in the campaign, but what he said was the same old political gobbledygook. All the same talk about garnering more allies (who have already betrayed us), downplaying the role of the noble allies who actually ARE helping us, making ludicrous proposals about kowtowing to Kim Jong Il by giving him the one-on-one talks he wants so much. He was in his usual form as an empty suit.

I have a feeling that his debate performance will play better with the lefty suck-ups in the media than with most ordinary Americans. Remember how the media gushed over his acceptance speech at the convention? It didn't do much for him after the convention was over.

[Blowback]

Next debate: Kerry in puffy shirt, ruffles down the front with flared cuffs, dracula cape with high collar, black leather chaps and platform K.I.S.S. shoes.

The biscotti nibbling crowd will luv it, spilling espresso all over themselves as their eyes roll up in the back of their heads in total thrall.


LOL! I always enjoy your posts, WJ.

[Maggie_T]

Another thing that vastly amused me was when he went through the laundry list of things he'd accomplish in 4 years. This from the joker who spent 20 years in the senate and did NOTHING! All of a sudden, he wants to convince us that he's going to get cracking in four years. LOL :grin:

[Maggie_T]

And would someone please remind this schmuck, Kerry, that Lubyanka Square in downtown Moscow is the place he allegedly visited (and also the site of the Lubyanka head-quarters of the KGB), and that Treblinka was a concentration camp in Poland, and that he should not mix the two if he wants to be taken seriously? :rolleyes:

[DesertFox]

Kerry don't wanna be taken seriously, he just wants to be president like all good rich boys do.

Maybe then all his classmates from that rich kindergarten -- the only reference group that means anything to the really, REALLY rich, who after all are different from you and me -- will quit laughing at his big ears, horse face and tiny, shriveled winky.

[Warlady]

The only thing I got out of it from Kerry is that he is a much better liar than Algore. What the hell is up with "a global test"? BS????

[Naturalized-Texan]

The only thing I got out of it from Kerry is that he is a much better liar than Algore. What the hell is up with "a global test"? BS????

But, he's not as good a liar as BJ Clinton. Still, Kerry comes across as one of those snake oil hawkers in the old Western movies.

[Maggie_T]

The only thing I got out of it from Kerry is that he is a much better liar than Algore. What the hell is up with "a global test"? BS????
It's the New World Order crap that liberals so desperately want America to be a part of. You know, ask the UN and the Socialist Eurotrash permission for everything.

"Excuse me, masters. A couple of airplanes were just flown into two buildings in such and such city. An estimated 3,000 people died. Do we have your permission to retaliate? Yes, I know we are hated by many people, but don't you think this time they went a bit over the top? Your prompt reply would be appreciated."

That, ladies and gentlemen, will be Kerry's attitude to terrorism, if he gets elected. Meantime, you and I will be dead. Make no mistake about it. :flame:

[Warlady]

Well? What is it?

[Chris]

I think he means this (http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Poll+puts+Bush%2C+Kerry+about+even+-+Oct+3%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11836688&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FALLPOLITICS% 2F10%2F03%2Fgallup.poll%2F&partnerID=2001).

[Warlady]

This to me is the only question that matters:

"And when it comes to who they think is the stronger leader, those polled favored Bush by 56 percent to 37 percent for Kerry."

[Warlady]

Another thing. I don't like weekend polls. I don't consider them very reliable.

[nosferatuscoffin]

They are reliable, as it is a known statistical fact that you will always get a higher sampling of Dems when you poll on the weekends. That is one reason the media loves to use them.

[Warlady]

That's what I meant. The media did this with Algore too. Bush didn't do nearly as bad as they are making it out to be. He made a lot of very excellent points. As far as I'm concerned Kerry reinforced my belief that he's weak on foreign policy. Global test?????? Providing Iran with radioactive material????????? What the hell is wrong with that guy? True Bush missed a lot of opportunities to point out Kerry's Senate record. That's unfortunate but most Americans should already know this stuff. I guess Bush's only mistake is thinking most voters are up to snuff on Kerry. We are but I don't think most are. Hopefully he'll rectify that between now and election day.

[dajoga]

The only thing I got out of it from Kerry is that he is a much better liar than Algore. What the hell is up with "a global test"? BS????

You asked? Here 'tis!

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.10.01.GlobalTest-X.gif

[Tlaloc]

It's the New World Order crap that liberals so desperately want America to be a part of. You know, ask the UN and the Socialist Eurotrash permission for everything.
I believe the idea is extending the concept of democracy. We have democratic local, regional, and national institutions. A democratic international institution seems a logical next step.

[Tlaloc]

6 months. If all was roses.
I believe he said we might be able to start withdrawing troops in 6 months. I don't think he's ever said how long he expects the process to take.

[Chris]

I believe the idea is extending the concept of democracy. We have democratic local, regional, and national institutions. A democratic international institution seems a logical next step.

Not if it usurps our Constitution, which is what lefty-liberal-logic is all about.

[tacitus]

I believe he said we might be able to start withdrawing troops in 6 months. I don't think he's ever said how long he expects the process to take.

T you really need to do some checking before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it again. Think man think.

Kerry contends Bush has been dishonest about the war’s rationale and cost and lacks an effective strategy to end the crisis. While Kerry urges a start of troop withdrawals within six months and complete pullout in four years, Bush and Allawi, appearing together at a White House Rose Garden news conference, said the United States must stand and fight.


Link to the article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6077104/) :duh:

[el presidente]

Anyone see this gem yet? http://www.newsfly.org/kvsk.htm